Date: Nov 28, 2012 6:27 PM
Author: Ray Koopman
Subject: Re: Results (!!) on average slopes and means for a1_N_1_C (complement<br> instead of core subset)
On Nov 28, 9:37 am, djh <halitsk...@att.net> wrote:

> Results (!!) on average slopes and means for a1_N_1_C (complement

> instead of core subset)

>

> Len

> Int Avg Slope Mean u'

>

> 1 -2.225882168 0.482402362

> 2 -2.315512399 0.469544417

> 3 -0.769858117 0.485742217

> 4 -1.697049757 0.451420560

> 5 -2.069842267 0.459536902

> 6 -4.427566827 0.457327711

> 7 -0.941379623 0.458781950

> 8 -2.069096413 0.445826306

> 9 -1.620229799 0.442040277

> 10 -3.764328472 0.449422937

> 11 -7.882327621 0.458400090

> 12 -11.82556530 0.458971482

>

> I don?t know if the above results, when compared to the results in the

> previous post for a1_N_1_S, do or don?t indicate that your definition

> of average slope is OK.

>

> As in the a1_N_1_S case, Mean(u?) inversely correlates with LenInt.

>

> But unlike the a1_N_1_S case, average slope ALSO inversely correlates

> with LenInt.

>

> I can readily make a scientific interpretation of these two sets of

> results, but don?t want to do so if you think that these two sets of

> results indicate a problem with the definition of average slope.

The plots look nice, but each point needs standard error bars.

The average slope is a1 + 2*a2*mean_x, so its standard error is

sqrt[ var(a1) + 4*var(a2)*(mean_x)^2 + 4*cov(a1,a2)*mean_x ],

with df = n-3.